Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner, as a successor entity of the original contracting consultant, could invoke the arbitration clause and seek appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 without execution of a fresh agreement.
Analysis: The agreement expressly described the consultant as including its successors and assigns, and the contractual definitions similarly extended the expression to successors in office. The materials showed that the original partnership firm had undergone a change in status and that the petitioner company had taken over its assets and liabilities. In these circumstances, the petitioner was treated as stepping into the shoes of the original consultant, and the arbitration clause continued to bind and benefit it. A fresh agreement with the respondent was therefore not necessary for invocation of the arbitration clause.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the petitioner, and the Court appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a contract expressly extends to successors and assigns, a successor entity may enforce the arbitration clause without a fresh agreement if it has taken over the contractual business and liabilities of the original contracting party.